- Registered Member
Member for 9 years, 3 months, and 26 days
Last active Sun, May, 27 2012 02:14:51
- 0 Followers
- 17 Total Posts
- 3 Thanks
Jan 16, 2012Xanedil_Bridges posted a message on Would you rather have survival or creative mode installed firstCreative. Preferably a full creative and not the one they currently have (with more blocks, flying, etc.)Posted in: MCPE: Discussion
Jan 5, 2012Posted in: 1.0 Update DiscussionQuote from Altoid2
I don't see why they couldn't have just modded the default generator to not make hills/mountains/etc. so that the map is still just as high with an underground. And there should be trees, which are easy enough to knock down if you want building area. Maybe even water ponds/lakes with some clay at the bottom.
The 3-layers-of-dirt-only thing is just a jury-rigged version, I hope that they make flat worlds viable for survival in a relatively soon future update.
Best reason: probably so you have more height to work with. You'd have around 120 blocks of height rather than 60-70ish, which is preferable to mega-builds.
Jan 2, 2012Posted in: 1.0 Update DiscussionQuote from Awesomebob74
First: 1562. Not 2500 (source)
Second: I can get Efficiency III, Unbreaking III from a level 38 enchant.
So I'm going to spend the time getting to level 50 (still a couple hours on the most efficient grinder), then more time sitting at that table clicking till I see 50 in the lower slot. Just so I can get an enchant I would probably have gotten if I'd stopped and enchanted at level 38?!
No thanks. The mod "Better Enchanting 1.1" got it right. Pick pick the enchants you want so you are never disappointed.
Are we really going to get into the problems of randomized enchantments? The OP's complaint is that it's easy to lose all of your exp upon death, so I'd prefer not to get into the other controversies of enchanting in vanilla MC.
However, that mod sounds interesting, so I may look it up.
As for the topic at hand, yes it gets on my nerves too. I think it would be more preferable to lose a portion of your exp, rather than all, and have it not be subjected to the same hazards that other items are, such as fire or creeper explosions.
Dec 28, 2011Posted in: 1.0 Update DiscussionQuote from Mercy_Killer
Tall grass RUINED snow biome with "greeness" and snow biome supposed to be white. :angry.gif:
LE GASP! That's absolutely horrible, I can't fathom playing MC the same way ever again.
No, tall grass to me is aggravating because you have to remove it in order to put blocks down, and in creative mode, that is a major annoyance. It ruins snow biomes with "greeness", don't the trees already do that?
Dec 28, 2011Posted in: 1.0 Update DiscussionQuote from GeekyGirlyShadow
The thing that Creative 'destroys' minecraft.. I kind of feel that this is true. Before i knew there was any mods to the game or hacks, it felt like a paradise. But now after when i know there are 19914971 mods and creative... well i just do my creative stuff in creative... and never anything creative in survival like im used too... And no the "dont play Creative then" Is a bad arguement.. Because you really feel a need to play creative instead of survival when trying to make a big project..
Tell that to the people who still do mega projects in survival (I can't name names but I'm sure there are a good amount). Even before creative you had TMI and SPC for those people to make things like "big projects" without the need to collect resources. People still do that sort of thing in survival because they feel that it's more rewarding knowing that they built something "legitimately." I just see creative as a way for the not-as-fanatics to build more elaborate stuff without having to mod their game.
And yes I agree that "don't play it then" is a bad argument but it's technically still valid. It's just a really weak argument.
Edit* And to the OP, I honestly believe that probably half of these "complaints" wouldn't be here were they not pointed out to you by posts similar to these first.
Dec 5, 2011All the towers do is unnecessarily prolong the boss battle, considering the Enderdragon's health is massive enough as is. I wish it were more difficult though, at least more variety in his attack patterns and such.Posted in: 1.0 Update Discussion
Nov 26, 2011Posted in: General GamingQuote from Crolen1
Skyrim and Call Of Duty are two different genres and should NEVER be compared.
Exactly. Really the only reason I think people compare them is because the hype levels were almost the same, and the two release dates being so close together really didn't help much either.
Nov 26, 2011Posted in: General GamingQuote from oliver123459
call of duty is more fun and skrim is for people with no lifes who play for 300 hours and don't have friends
From your post count, it seems that you simply made an account just to defend your precious MW3. I think you sir have no life (although to be fair, mine's not much higher :sleep.gif:)
As for the topic at hand, it really is an unfair question, MW3 or Skyrim, simply because their two completely different genres of games; it's really all about preference. Do you like FPSs or open-world sandboxes? Real-world or fantasy? hours of multiplayer or hours of single player? It's really more about what you like.
Of course I believe Skyrim is better though, and mainly for these reasons:
1. Skyrim is a legitimate, massive upgrade from Oblivion. The graphics, the sounds, the combat, pretty much everything is better than it was previously. From what I've seen of MW3, it looks exactly the same as MW2, and the people who've played it that I've talked to say there's nothing that's massively improved.
2. Probably my biggest reason: for $60, Skyrim gives you a rewarding single player experience that can last at least 50 hours (and can go much higher). MW3 only has a 4-5 hour campaign and Special-Ops (and survival and that other stuff.) The only part of MW3 that has replayability is the multiplayer, and since I don't have XBox Live Gold, that would be $60 for a 10 hour experience. And even if I did, I might as well be playing an MMO like WoW instead, since I still have to pay for a subscription. So really, Skyrim is more for your money, and that really matters to me.
Nov 20, 2011I was pleasantly surprised when reading about the many good reviews Skyward Sword had gotten, and now I really want to play it. I just wish that it came out a month later, seeing as how Skyrim is eating up all of my free time.Posted in: General Gaming
But we got it today, and I can't wait to see how it looks and eventually play it.
Nov 8, 2011Posted in: 1.0 Update DiscussionQuote from Da_Greatest_Mage
Honestly now, if a player went through all that trouble just to grief a server, then he should damn well be able to grief that server.
He worked his ass off for what he wanted to accomplish. Now Flint and Steel griefers on the other hand...
So if someone plans for months or puts a lot of time and effort into a plot to murder someone or steal his credit card numbers, that suddenly makes it okay? I fail to see the logic in that. Griefing is griefing: it doesn't matter how much time or elaborateness is put into it.
And on topic, this is simply a new way to flesh out the game experience. I agree that the invisibility potion should have some drawbacks, but honestly, the shift key and a pick (and not even that) are all people need in order to grief.
- To post a comment, please login.